Here are the steps:
1. Read about peer review and questions we’ll ask.
2. Answer questions for three people who are clockwise (right) from you in the circle image (on Blackboard)
3. Reply (by Thursday) to the discussion board with answers to three drafts.
4. Revise your blog with the feedback you receive.
5. Post final blog to your evaluation blog and link to Blackboard.
Peer reviewing is usually a “behind the scenes” practice. It isn’t editing but rather asking questions about the bigger issues that might show up in a draft. Because of this, we’ll work through the LMS (Blackboard) to answer the following questions about your peers’ blog drafts (by Thursday at midnight). You will, however, post your final draft (Sunday by midnight) to your blog (and the link to Blackboard.)
1. Does the blogger provide a clear, focused, and developed thesis (main point) persuading the reader that certain criteria (literary elements, gameplay, interaction, etc.) are important for telling a good digital story? For more on what makes a good thesis see: https://mytext.cnm.edu/lesson/thesis-development/
2. Quote Sandwich: Does each paragraph have a clear topic sentence that extends the reasoning of the thesis? Is the evidence from the stories “sandwiched” in the middle of the paragraph? Which paragraphs need to be further developed? Don’t worry about thick paragraphs here (big paragraphs are good), even though I know some advice about blogs suggests small paragraphs (that’s more for journalism or business). For more on paragraph developement, see: https://mytext.cnm.edu/lesson/paragraph-development/
3. Does the blogger precisely explain what specific kinds of characterization, conflict, etc. are being used in the example(s)? Should they revisit the page defining that element to formulate a more precise definition? If they chose interactivity or gameplay as a criterion for a good digital story, did they quote from Bryan Alexander or another source defining it?
4. Does the blogger lose focus at any point during the argument? If so, where? How can it be fixed? How can they tie their argument in those less-focused parts back to the thesis?
5. Does the blogger thoroughly explain the clear and compelling evidence from one or more good digital stories (direct quotes and/or paraphrases)? Where does the explanation need to be expanded?
6. Does the blogger mention the significance of the expectations of the particular subgenre (for instance, microblogs)? Does this help make their argument (thesis) more persuasive?
7. Does the blogger quote or paraphrase from Bryan Alexander giving him appropriate credit and building on his ideas? Should they?
Double check the blog prompt: http://www.briankhudson.com/courses/digital-storytelling/eval-blog/